From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758343AbaGWPkG (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:40:06 -0400 Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]:56898 "EHLO mail-vc0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757984AbaGWPkD (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:40:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <53CFC170.9090505@roeck-us.net> References: <1406119899-22659-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com> <53CFC170.9090505@roeck-us.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:39:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" From: Nick Krause To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Sasha Levin , Geert Uytterhoeven , Steven Rostedt , One Thousand Gnomes , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Sasha Levin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 07/23/2014 05:51 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: >> >> Revert since we're trying to return -ENXIO from a function returning >> unsigned int. Not only it causes compiler warnings it's also obviously >> incorrect. >> >> In general, watch for patches from Nick Krause since they are not even >> build tested. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin > > > Guess I wasn't fast enough with my comments :-( > > Acked-by: Guenter Roeck > > >> --- >> arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c >> index 9dfa1ea..513f9bb 100644 >> --- a/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c >> +++ b/arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c >> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static unsigned int q40_irq_startup(struct irq_data >> *data) >> case 1: case 2: case 8: case 9: >> case 11: case 12: case 13: >> printk("%s: ISA IRQ %d not implemented by HW\n", __func__, >> irq); >> - return -ENXIO; >> + /* FIXME return -ENXIO; */ >> } >> return 0; >> } >> > I guess this is another bad patch :(. Nick